Afghan hijackers, good blokes really?

#2
Does this mean they can't be prosecuted for the hijack, jailed (at UK taxpayers expense) and THEN deported under the new guidelines that the chopper Clarke introduced before he got the heave-ho?
 
#3
Another fine example of British justice and the well oiled wheels of the Home Office in motion............. :x
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#4
But they can't be allowed to stay! The government said they wouldn't:

"UK Home Secretary Jack Straw has told MPs that the hostages released from the hijacking at Stansted airport will be told to leave as quickly as possible."

"We will respond resolutely to any attempts like this to use terrorist methods, whether the aim is to advance a political cause or to benefit the individuals concerned.
"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/637729.stm

Glad to see that nothing has changed, then.
 
#5
OldSnowy said:
But they can't be allowed to stay! The government said they wouldn't:

"UK Home Secretary Jack Straw has told MPs that the hostages released from the hijacking at Stansted airport will be told to leave as quickly as possible."

"We will respond resolutely to any attempts like this to use terrorist methods, whether the aim is to advance a political cause or to benefit the individuals concerned.
"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/637729.stm

Glad to see that nothing has changed, then.
Not that our beloved government would lie to us/ ignore previous promises :evil:

Our government is a disgrace. When will they realise that their actions (or frequently there inactions) fly in the face of what the majority of law abiding UK citizens want.

edited for mong spelling.
 
#6
OldSnowy said:
But they can't be allowed to stay! The government said they wouldn't:

"UK Home Secretary Jack Straw has told MPs that the hostages released from the hijacking at Stansted airport will be told to leave as quickly as possible."

"We will respond resolutely to any attempts like this to use terrorist methods, whether the aim is to advance a political cause or to benefit the individuals concerned.
"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/637729.stm

Glad to see that nothing has changed, then.
Im sure the Govt did tell them to leave as quickly as possible - they didn't say they would make them leave as quickly as possible.
 
#8
Well, the EU has poked its big nose in and said we can't deport the poor chaps...even though the Taliban regime they fled from has been routed by the 'forces for good'. Surely if the people they are fleeing have been done away with they SHOULD be able to go back to the homeland they SHOULD be trying to get back to?

Are they real refugees, scroungers or just people with bad family values who don't want to go back to their missus?
 
#9
Wouldn't it have been a shame if they resisted as the plane was initially stormed. A few rounds of 9mm expended, a few less terrorists in the world and none of this fuss.
 
#10
I cannot believe how the judge came to that decision. Perhaps they should be holed up round his home or area since he (Justice Sullivan?) think they've been so violated. Probably one of the very very few times where I agree with the stance of Blair and the Sun's front newspaper on an issue.
 
#11
As a White/English (Ethnic Background) person. Should I Hi-Jack a civil airliner, Force the pilots, at gunpoint, to land in the Seychelles (Great Beaches) would I get away with it?

NO

I cannot see, what possible reason Justice Sullivan thinks he can use to justify keeping these people in this country so that the taxpayer has to support them.
 
#12
Hopefully the next Hi Jacked jet heading our way will be brought down via Sidewinder. Would save the taxpayer the £10 Million legal fees these terrorists have had at our expense. Next time you hear of someone being denied drugs for cancer, next time you hear the the 7/7 bombers weren't watched due to lack of recources, next time you cant get body armour or ammo because of budget cuts, just remember that money is a drop in the ocean compared to whats being spent on other "Asylum" seekers..
 
#13
My take:

The article said that their conviction for hijacking, etc were overturned. Meaning that they have not been convicted of hijacking (or whatever offence that would be).

If they have not been convicted of a crime, then their alleged actions should not be held against them. It should be irrelevent in deciding whether or not to deport them. The issue then is whether or not they will be in mortal danger if the UK deport them to Afghanistan. Apparently the court found that to be so. Hence, non-deportation can be justified.
 
#14
Scabster_Mooch said:
My take:

The article said that their conviction for hijacking, etc were overturned. Meaning that they have not been convicted of hijacking (or whatever offence that would be).

If they have not been convicted of a crime, then their alleged actions should not be held against them. It should be irrelevent in deciding whether or not to deport them. The issue then is whether or not they will be in mortal danger if the UK deport them to Afghanistan. Apparently the court found that to be so. Hence, non-deportation can be justified.
BOLLOX!





Edited because Scabster_Mooch is a cock!.
 
#15
Scabster_Mooch said:
...The article said that their conviction for hijacking, etc were overturned. Meaning that they have not been convicted of hijacking (or whatever offence that would be)...
BBC reported this last night as "not being charged with Hijacking due to technicalities" - but didn't say any more, does anyone know what the technicality was?

I'm figuring Essex Police lost the evidence; "No, honest Sarge, there was a 737 there, before I went for coffee!"
 
#16
I stand to be corrected but I believe the Judge made a technical error. At the end of the day a picture of some Afghani with a gun, stood in a plane that was forced to divert somehow seems like enough evidence to find the lunatics guilty. Then some judge forgets to dot an"i" or cross a "t" and they're no longer guilty of anything!

FFS get rid of these scrotes. Blair and co had better not let this one lie!
 
#17
The same judge probably considers 9/11 a slight navigational misunderstanding..... It was terrorism pure and simple, The Taliban are no longer in power so no reason not to send them back. Besides which, all the REALLY dangerous Afghans are on our streets following early release from prison. It's probably safer in Kabul right now!
 
#18
Warrior_Poet said:
Hopefully the next Hi Jacked jet heading our way will be brought down via Sidewinder. Would save the taxpayer the £10 Million legal fees these terrorists have had at our expense. Next time you hear of someone being denied drugs for cancer, next time you hear the the 7/7 bombers weren't watched due to lack of recources, next time you cant get body armour or ammo because of budget cuts, just remember that money is a drop in the ocean compared to whats being spent on other "Asylum" seekers..
Of course, we could spend less on asylum seekers if they were allowed to work, rather than having to claim benefits.

But wait! They can't be allowed to work, because then they would be Taking British Jobs and Stealing Our Children's Livelihoods. So we'll have to keep spending money on their benefits.

Or do you genuinely believe that we have no duty to people who would otherwise be persecuted, unjustly imprisoned, tortured or executed?

As for your ridiculous idea about shooting down hijacked jets - with plenty of innocents aborad - ...it really just highlights your abhorrent and racist views. What if the next hijacked jet is an Easy Jet flight of British package holiday makers? Would you shoot that down?

No - why not? Without wanting to put words in your mouth, I'd guess your response would be because they're British, as opposed to Afghan. In other words, you'd make decisions of life and death based on race.

I call that racism.

sm.
 
#19
Call it what you like you tree-hugging cock!!

These people Hi-jacked a plane, using weapons, endangered the innocent lives of those on board for their own gains. There is no other way to interpret this. Send them back!! Are they likely to be unfairly treated in their own country..possibly. Were the passangers of the flight unfairly treated by these gun-toting hi-jackers? YES!
 
#20
Smithie, the point is the passengers would already be dead so any shooting down would be merely to prevent more death so whilst it would be a terrible decision, it is one that would have to be made. If I must make life or death decisions (Believe me I have) I do it based on the lesser evil. Not nice, but there's the way it is.

This situation is now more likely because we have just rewarded Hi Jackers so a real victory for the liberals there, they have just put countless more innocent lives in danger.

As for asylum seekers, most of them (About 90%) are bogus, in other words they are lying to claim benefits and here illegally... Its called fraud. We have millions unemployed who should be trained to do the jobs society needs. Hospitals are laying off staff yet we continue to import medical staff who are needed more in their own countries (Again costing life) And our citizens are being raped and murdered because you and your ilk haven't got the sense to realise not all our guest residents are our friends. This is not about race, its about common sense.

As for making decisions of life and death based on race... I admit I would rather shoot down a foreign airliner than a British one... Thats not being racist... its being human...
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top